Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 1/11/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sensors” recited in claims 6 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an exterior surface”, this limitation is not detailed in the specifications and therefore lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed component of the device.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an exterior surface”, this limitation is not detailed in the specifications and therefore lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed component of the device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1-
reads “a user having a sclap requiring treatment” and should read –a user having a scalp requiring treatment—
reads “the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp” and should read --the pressure pads apply a pressure to the user's scalp--
Claim 2 reads “where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure” and should read --where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease respectfully, the amount of pressure—
Claim 3 reads “where the pressure applied evenly over the user's scalp” and should read -- where the pressure is applied evenly over the user's scalp—
Claim 7 reads “the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp” and should read --the pressure pads apply a pressure to the user's scalp--
Claim 9 reads “where pressure pads are removably attached” and should read --where the pressure pads are removably attached—
Claim 11 reads “where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure” and should read --where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease respectfully, the amount of pressure—
Claim 16 reads “adjusting the pressure” and should be corrected to --adjusting the applied pressure--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “providing a user” (ln 2) and “the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp” (ln 6) renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim. The claim as currently written requires the user and the user’s scalp to be a part of the apparatus, therefore the claim encompasses a part of a human organism and is unpatentable. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to”. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as configured for a user and the pressure pads being configured to provide a pressure. The Examiner suggests the claim to be amended to read:
"a scalp pressure cap for treating a scalp of a user, the scalp pressure cap comprising a cap body, having an exterior surface and an interior surface, a head of the user, and a chin strap attached to the cap body, and a plurality of pressure pads secured to the interior surface of the cap body; wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material; and the pressure pads are configured to apply pressure to the user's scalp."
Additionally, the claim recites “a plurality of pressure pads secured to the interior surface of the cap body; wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material” (ln 5-7) and it is unclear whether the Applicant is claiming that pressure pads all contain non- Newtonian fluid or if only one of the pressure pads contains a non-Newtonian fluid. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as all the pressure pads containing a non-Newtonian fluid.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the chin strap being capable of loosening or tightening or if the Applicant is intending to claim the chin strap being configured to loosen and tighten in order to change the pressure of the cap body. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the chin strap is configured to tighten or loosen to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “where the pressure applied evenly over the user's scalp” renders the claim indefinite because both phrases are method steps in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of being distributed evenly across the scalp or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is configured to be applied evenly across the scalp. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure is configured to apply evenly over the user’s scalp.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “where the pressure applied is sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is sufficiently configured to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure is sufficiently configured to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “where the pressure applied is between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of being between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is configured to be between 1.4 and 4.3 kPa. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure applied is configured to be between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “sensors to measure the pressure applied” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the sensors or if the Applicant is intending to claim the sensors are configured to measure the pressure applied to the user’s scalp. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the sensors are configured to measure the pressure applied.
Additionally, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming that each pressure pad contains a singular sensor and together, they make up a plurality of sensors or if one pressure pad contains multiple sensors. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as the pressure pads each having a singular sensor.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “providing a user” (ln 2) and “the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp” (ln 5-6) renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim. The claim as currently written requires the user and the user’s scalp to be a part of the apparatus, therefore the claim encompasses a part of a human organism and is unpatentable. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as configured for a user and the pressure pads being configured to provide a pressure. The Examiner suggests the claim to be amended to read:
"a scalp pressure cap for treating a scalp of a user, the scalp pressure cap comprising a cap body, having an exterior surface and an interior surface, a head of the user, and a chin strap, and a plurality of pressure pads secured to the interior surface of the cap body; wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material; and the pressure pads are configured to apply pressure to the user's scalp."
Additionally, the claim recites “and a plurality of pressure pads are deposited on the interior surface of the cap body; wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material” (ln 4-6) and it is unclear whether the Applicant is claiming that pressure pads all contain non- Newtonian fluid or if only one of the pressure pads contains a non-Newtonian fluid. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as all pressure pads containing a non-Newtonian fluid.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “where pressure pads are removably attached” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure pads are able to be removably attached or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure pads are configured to be removably attached. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the where the pressure pads are configured to be removably attached.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the chin strap being capable of loosening or tightening or if the Applicant is intending to claim the chin strap being configured to loosen and tighten in order to change the pressure of the cap body. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the chin strap is configured to tighten or loosen to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “where the pressure applied evenly over the user's scalp or unevenly over the user’s scalp” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of being distributed evenly or unevenly across the scalp of the user or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is configured to be applied evenly or unevenly across the scalp. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure is configured to apply evenly and/or unevenly over the user’s scalp.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “where the pressure applied is sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is sufficiently configured to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure is sufficiently configured to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “where the pressure applied is between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the pressure being applied is capable of being between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa or if the Applicant is intending to claim the pressure is configured to be between 1.4 and 4.3 kPa. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the pressure applied is configured to be between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “sensors to measure the pressure applied” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a method step in an apparatus claim, and it is unclear if the Applicant is only intending to functionally recite the sensors or if the Applicant is intending to claim the sensors are configured to measure the pressure applied to the user’s scalp. It is suggested that the claim be amended through the use of terminology such as “configured to” or “made to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the sensors are configured to measure the pressure applied.
Additionally, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming that each pressure pad contains a singular sensor and together, they make up a plurality of sensors or if one pressure pad contains multiple sensors. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as the pressure pads each having a singular sensor.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannon et al. (US 20230390145 A1) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Schwirian et al. (US 20160095787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hannon discloses an scalp pressure cap (compression device 1, FIG 1) comprising: a cap body (inner membrane 7 and outer mesh layer 6, FIG 2), having an exterior surface and an interior surface (outer mesh layer 6 and inner membrane 7, FIG 2), providing a user having a sclap requiring treatment, where the cap body is configured to snugly fit over the head of the user, ([0128] “The device may be used with any size or shape of head, foot, hand, or cavity, which allows it to be used for all ages (from an infant to an adult), providing a flexibility and ease of use.” The device’s many shapes and sizes allow the device to snugly fit the wearer when equipped.) and a chin strap attached to the cap body (adjustable straps 10 attached to the first layer 3, second layer 4, and bladder(s) 5 through the attachment member 2, FIG 2), and a plurality of pressure pads secured to the interior surface of the cap body (bladder compartments 5 that is flush with the inner membrane, FIG 2; [0037] “In one aspect, the at least one primary bladder (5) further comprises a plurality of bladder compartments”); and the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp. ([0132] “The at least one primary bladder 5, which is constrained in place by both the attachment member 2 and the outer mesh layer 6, is thus enabled to apply an incremental compressive force on the head of the subject wearing the device 1”)
Hannon is silent on wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material.
Schwirian teaches of a compression device that contains a non- Newtonian working fluid as to apply pressure to a user’s leg to increase blood flow [0022].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the device of Hannon to include a non-newtonian fluid to fill the bladders as taught by Schwirian. The use of a non-newtonian fluid in the pressure bladders would allow the user to have a more pressure-adaptive flow behavior when under pressure as well as reduced wear on the bladder’s surface to allow for longer usage.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 1, where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp. (Hannon [0059] “In one aspect, the fastening systems or adjustment member can be used with greater force to tighten the device against the surface of the scalp, foot, or hand. Through a drawstring mechanism of tightening the device against the scalp/foot/hand surface, pressure levels required for therapeutic effect are achieved.”)
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 2, where the pressure applied evenly over the user's scalp. (Hannon’s device comprises a pneumatic system of pressure that allows the deceive to apply a constant and/or uniform pressure across the scalp of the user. [0020], FIG 2)
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 3, where the pressure applied is sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: it’s noted by the Applicant that 1.4 kPa pressure is the needed pressure to expel inflammatory fluid and 4.3kPa is the vascular closure pressure. Using the mmHg to kPa formula commonly known in the art, 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa and consequently being sufficient to expel inflammatory fluid but less than the vascular closure.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim, where the pressure applied is between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa per the commonly known conversion formula; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 5, where the pressure pads further include sensors to measure the pressure applied to the user's scalp. (Hannon details how the device contains multiple bladders and each bladder is connected to its own control element and pressure sensor as to regulate the pressure being applied. [0137], FIG 2)
Regarding claim 7, Hannon discloses a scalp pressure cap (compression device 1, FIG 1) comprising: a cap body (inner membrane 7 and mesh layer 6, FIG 2), having an interior surface and an exterior surface (outer mesh layer 6 and inner membrane 7, FIG 2), providing a user with a scalp requiring treatment, where the cap body is configured to snugly fit over the head of the user (FIG 2, [0128] “The device may be used with any size or shape of head, foot, hand, or cavity, which allows it to be used for all ages (from an infant to an adult), providing a flexibility and ease of use.” The device’s many shapes and sizes allow the device to snugly fit the wearer when equipped), and a chin strap, (adjustable straps 10, FIG 1), and a plurality of pressure pads are deposited on the interior surface of the cap body (bladder compartments 5 that is flush with the inner membrane, FIG 2; [0037] “In one aspect, the at least one primary bladder (5) further comprises a plurality of bladder compartments”); and the pressure pads apply pressure to the user's scalp. ([0132] “The at least one primary bladder 5, which is constrained in place by both the attachment member 2 and the outer mesh layer 6, is thus enabled to apply an incremental compressive force on the head of the subject wearing the device 1”)
Hannon is silent on wherein the pressure pad further comprises a non-Newtonian material.
Schwirian teaches of a compression device that contains a non- Newtonian working fluid as to apply pressure to a user’s leg to increase blood flow [0022].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the device of Hannon to include a non-Newtonian fluid to fill the bladders as taught by Schwirian. The use of a non-Newtonian fluid in the pressure bladders would allow the user to have a more pressure-adaptive flow behavior when under pressure as well as reduced wear on the bladder’s surface to allow for longer usage.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Hannon is a modified method for expelling inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp comprising: the user donning the scalp pressure cap disclosed by Hannon modified device in claim 7 and adjusting the pressure by tightening or loosening the chin strap. (Hannon [0059] “In one aspect, the fastening systems or adjustment member can be used with greater force to tighten the device against the surface of the scalp, foot, or hand. Through a drawstring mechanism of tightening the device against the scalp/foot/hand surface, pressure levels required for therapeutic effect are achieved.”)
Regarding claim 17, the modified method of Hannon discloses the modified method of claim 16 where the pressure applied is sufficient to expel the inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but is less than the vascular closure pressure. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: it’s noted by the Applicant that 1.4 kPa pressure is the needed pressure to expel inflammatory fluid and 4.3kPa is the vascular closure pressure. Using the mmHg to kPa formula commonly known in the art, 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa and consequently being sufficient to expel inflammatory fluid but less than the vascular closure.)
Regarding claim 18, the modified method of Hannon discloses the modified method of claim 16 where the pressure applied is between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa per the commonly known conversion formula; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannon et al. (US 20230390145 A1) and Schwirian et al. (US 20160095787 A1) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20220159653 A).
Regarding claim 8, Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 7.
Hannon and Schwirian are silent on where the cap body is made from a soft flexible material, where the soft flexible material comprises a fabric or a semi-rigid material.
Kim teaches of a compression cap that utilizes an outer covering made from an elastic type material with flexibility ([0035], FIG 1); while the inner portion, the absorbent part 140, are made from sterilized dressings, a soft cushioning element ([0050], FIG 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the design of Hannon and Schwirian to make the mesh layer out of a flexible material such as rubber as taught by Kim to assist in the fastening and tightening of the mesh layer on the user’s scalp without cracking or deforming the mesh layer. It would also be obvious to include a cushioning pad along the inner membrane of the cap to give the user a more comfortable fit while wearing the device, as they will need to wear the device for long periods of time it is imperative for the user to be comfortable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannon et al. (US 20230390145 A1), Schwirian et al. (US 20160095787 A1), and Kim (KR 20220159653 A) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Dennis et al. (US 20060096011 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 8.
Hannon, Schwirian, and Kim are silent on where pressure pads are removably attached to the interior surface of the cap body.
Dennis teaches of a helmet structure containing pressure pads along the inner surface to absorb impact. These pressure pads are settled in multiple positions within the helmet device and can be attached and removed by the user at will ([0021], FIG 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to design the modified device of Hannon, Schwirian, and Kim to allow the multiple bladders to be removable within the compression cap as taught by Dennis. By allowing the bladders to be detachably connected to the cap, the user can easily fix any wear and replace individual bladders instead of replacing the whole device. This also allows the user to shift and move the bladders into the correct position to allow the bladders to work effectively for each user, as each user might need treatment in different areas along the skull.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 9 where the removable attachment further comprises a hook and loop system, or snaps, or buttons, or a releasable adhesive. (As detailed by Dennis the cushioning pads are removable via conventional hook-and-pile fastening elements. Dennis [0021])
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 9, where the chin strap is tightened or loosened to increase or decrease the amount of pressure applied to the user's scalp. (Hannon [0059] “In one aspect, the fastening systems or adjustment member can be used with greater force to tighten the device against the surface of the scalp, foot, or hand. Through a drawstring mechanism of tightening the device against the scalp/foot/hand surface, pressure levels required for therapeutic effect are achieved.”)
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Hannon discloses the device of claim 11, where the pressure is applied evenly over the user's scalp or unevenly over the user's scalp. (Hannon details how the device contains multiple bladders and each bladder is connected to its own control element and pressure sensor as to regulate the pressure being applied, [0137] FIG 2. As it is noted, within Hannon’s device the user can adjust the pressure of each bladder as they have their own sensor and controller, this gives the user the ability to adjust the pressure in all areas allowing them to create an uneven or even pressure across their scalp. Hannon [0048] “In one aspect, the compressive pressure is applied uniformly or non-uniformly.”)
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 12, where the pressure applied is sufficient to expel inflammatory fluids from the user's scalp but less than the vascular closure pressure. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: it’s noted by the Applicant that 1.4 kPa pressure is the needed pressure to expel inflammatory fluid and 4.3kPa is the vascular closure pressure. Using the mmHg to kPa formula commonly known in the art, 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa and consequently being sufficient to expel inflammatory fluid but less than the vascular closure )
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 12, where the pressure applied is between 1.4 to 4.3 kPa. (Hannon [0019] “The method of the claimed invention (localised microvascular compression therapy) involves the application of a small amount of pressure (between about 10 mmHg to about 200 mmHg, preferably between about 15 mmHg and about 190 mmHg”. Examiner’s note: 15 mmHg is equal to 1.9998 kPa per the commonly known conversion formula; therefore, 1.4 kPa is equal to 10.5009 mmHg, thus allowing Hannon’s device to produce a pressure of between 1.4 kPa and 4.3 kPa.)
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Hannon discloses the modified device of claim 14, where the pressure pads further include sensors to measure the pressure applied to the user's scalp. (Hannon details how the device contains multiple bladders and each bladder is connected to its own control element and pressure sensor as to regulate the pressure being applied. [0137], FIG 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cummings et al. (US 10993843 B2) teaches of a head trauma cap that applies pressure to the user when affixed to the injured cranium. This method of compression allows bleeding to slow and to easy any head trauma currently being suffered.
Schubert (US 20230218305 A1) teaches of a tourniquet that can be applied to the head of a patient as to apply pressure to bleeding wounds and help retain the body heat of the patient. The tourniquet using inflatable bladders that increase pressure to the desired amount and to prevent infection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B RESTAINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE B RESTAINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights